DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Alexander Smith wrote: Well, in that case, I publically state that I did not have Internet access during Agora's Birthday. This prevented me from participating in the fora So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. -zefram
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:14 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: ais523 was a person on Agora's birthday. Argument against: By eir own admission, e was not capable of communicating in English via email during Agora's birthday. --Wooble Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. There are a huge number of occasions in the past where I couldn't communicate in English via email too, and unfortunately I haven't kept track of them, so this would lead us to a hugely unknown gamestate. (Do none of you lot ever sleep either? Maybe all of us have been non-persons at some point. Oh, and if this does lead to a massive gamestate recalculation, I suggest fixing it by proposal, if still possible. (This also just reiterates to me that we need some form of my emergency exit proposal; would someone care to proto or propose a fixed version? Was it just the II people didn't like?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Zefram wrote: Alexander Smith wrote: Well, in that case, I publically state that I did not have Internet access during Agora's Birthday. This prevented me from participating in the fora So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. You could have participated by delegating the authority to someone else (we used to do that on a regular basis) or by using RFC1149 directed at a fellow player authorized to send it on. Many, many such reasonable methods are provided, so you were not limited any more so than when I use a borrowed computer that happens to have a less-preferred browser for webmail. That aside, I hope someone uses this to finally define participate in the sense of the fora. The dictionary definition is so broad and non- specific as to require context to make any sense. For me, the definition is strict and limited to the ability to send messages via (not to) the fora, and receive from. This specifically means we can't pass laws making the distributor ban players, and the distributor can't do it themselves, but it doesn't mean that action or inactions of message-sending are free from legal consequences. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None are specifically restricted to persons. Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players. That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary. My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an annotation in the FLR. -root
Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:50 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None are specifically restricted to persons. Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players. That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary. My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an annotation in the FLR. -root Well, consider all the criminal CFJs filed against humans who weren't online at the time, and therefore potentially weren't people. -- ais523
